Wow, how stupid are his followers ...

Seriously, I mean, does Ted Haggard think there's anyone out there who actually believes this ... (from The New York Times)

"The Rev. Ted Haggard ... admitted today that he had purchased the illegal drug methamphetamine from a gay escort in Denver, but denied that he ever had sex with the man. ... Mr. Haggard said a Denver hotel referred him to Mr. Jones for the purpose of getting a massage. He said he met with Mr. Jones and bought the drug. "I was tempted, I bought it, but I did not use it," he said today. The station posted the video interview on its Web site.

He said he threw the drug out shortly after buying it. "I never kept it very long because it was wrong," he said.

I mean, really. Even if it were otherwise believable, it doesn't make logical sense. A Denver hotel referred him to a prostitute for a massage, so he bought drugs from the prostitute but didn't have sex with him. And he never took the drugs.

Next, he'll be blaming it on alcoholism or childhood sexual abuse. These repressed wingers never change.

John Kerry finally grows a set

Seriously, why couldn't he have acted like this when he was running for president, instead of the gun-shy eunuch he was?

"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq . It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they're afraid to debate real men. And this time it won't work because we're going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq."

As a public service ...

Holy crap, it's been a long time since I posted something! Sadly, I just didn't feel like i had anything new or interesting to contribute to discussions about the upcoming elections.

Fortunately, now I do. As a public service, allow me to present the following list of articles about Republican candidates in divers districts, states and such. I particularly love the JD Hayworth one. Happy reading!

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

FEMA

So now we see the latest example of the conservative theory of governing. Since they think government can't do anything right, they create their own self-fulfilling prophecy by saddling it with incompetent leadership, slashing its budget to ribbons to give tax breaks to rich people and large corporations, and watching it wither away. The final step? Point to its uselessness and abolish it.

Along comes the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They give it Michael Brown, an incompetent boob who couldn't even run an Arabian horse organization properly. They cut its funding to the point where they can barely operate their offices, much less accomplish anything useful at the times when Americans most need their help.

So what happens now? They complain that it's a weak, ineffectual agency that needs to be abolished.

Nice.

How about fixing the problems you caused instead? Too much to hope for?

Straw men and false dichotomies

So that's all I actually have to say about that speech last night.

The whole 'isolationist' thing is his biggest straw men yet, the latest in a long line. He can't conduct a real debate against real people making real points, so he has to make up an enemy that's easy to knock down. I mean, I haven't heard anyone say we should close off from the rest of the world. That would be stupid, to put it plainly.

But the choice isn't between closing off from the world and invading practically unarmed countries. The question isn't between exporting our jobs overseas and closing ourselves off from the world economy. The choice isn't between spying on normal American citizens and capitulating to terrorists. The choice isn't between doing everything Bush's way and dismantling our best institutions or hating America.

Ken Mehlman: Shameless shill or propagandist?

Trick question. He's both, and more. Really, in today's RNC mail, he's excelled himself in ways I cannot describe, only quote.

Let's start with the first sentence. "The President's most solemn duty under our Constitution is to protect the American people."

Already, he's off to a flying start. What does the presidential oath of office have to say about protecting the American people? Abso-fraggin-lutely nothing direct. What it does say is that he swears to (say it with me now, anyone who's ever had a federal job of any sort), "protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic (emphasis mine)."

And while protecting the American people might be implied by this and other oaths, affirmations, and powers delegated by the Constitution, it seems to me that his most solemn duty is right there spelled out very plainly.

"A critical element in this strategy is the terrorist surveillance program that the President authorized shortly after September 11th." And indeed, if they were only listening in on terrorists, that would indeed be a good thing.

"The terrorist surveillance program monitors al Qaeda terrorists and affiliates making phone calls into or from the United States - precisely the type of communication that preceded the 9/11 attacks. This is not 'domestic spying' on ordinary Americans arranging Little League practices or pot luck dinners. It's a tool that even FDR used in fighting World War II."

Hoo, boy. Where to begin? With the fact that they're monitoring domstic-to-domestic calls as well? With the fact that the 'communication that preceded the 9/11 attacks' was intercepted legally, well in advance, but not translated till several days afterward, rendering it useless (seems to me they need more translators, not more wire taps ... but then they fired all those gay ones ... but I digress)? With the Quakers in Florida, or the other war protesters, or the environmental groups? Sure, no Little Leaguers or pot luckers ... just peaceniks, civil libertarians and environmentalists. We all know PETA's just an al Qaeda front group.

Ah, hell.

(which means, if I may digress even further, "Continuous fire" in Minbari ... although any reference to a minbar is a sure way to get myself put on a watch list)

*cough*

Moving on. "After September 11th, we heard so often that our government failed to connect the dots. So, the President signed the Patriot Act, which had been passed overwhelmingly by Congress. He took appropriate action to connect the dots. He reformed the government bureaucracy, enabling it to fight a different kind of war."

Re-formed the government bureaucracy indeed. New redundant agencies. Homeland security funds allocated according to political exigencies rather than need. Politically-timed terror threat level manipulations. "Different kind of war ..." Goodness, we hear that a lot. How do you wage war on a concept? On a strategy? Have we rolled up al Qaeda yet? Have we diminished terrorism? Seems to me the 'different kind of war' we're involved in is a war on the American way of life, a war on civil liberties, a war on the American pocketbook. But war's always good for big business, whoever we're told to fight. And fear is good for war, whoever (or whatever) we're told to fear.

"Now, the Patriot Act is up for renewal. How do Democrats respond? They play politics, brag about "killing" the Patriot Act (video here), and accuse the President of breaking the law and violating civil rights. These are not the actions of a party that can be trusted to safeguard our national security."

Hrm. I'll leave that last point open to debate, except to point out that they are the actions of a party that can be trusted to safeguard the American way of life (which, by extension, I would assert, necessarily includes our national security).

Which part of the Constitution has to be gutted before Republicans and conservatives of good conscience wake up and realize these people aren't even acting like Americans, much less Republicans or conservatives? (oh, yeah, the second amendment; just you wait ...) How big does the budget deficit have to be to put a lie to the whole 'fiscal conservative' thing? How powerful does the executive branch have to be before they see the unconstitutional imbalance? How long till they start being Americans first and Republicans second?

And one last thing: If Bush keeps insisting that the UAMF gave him unilateral power to do what he sees fit, regardless of law, to 'protect' America, I'll keep comparing him to Hitler. It was, after all, Germany's Enabling Act that gave Hitler unilateral power to do what he saw fit, regardless of law, to 'protect' Germany from the Bolshevik threat.

I'm just sayin'. Act like an American, George, however much it hurts.

Ken Mehlman, RNCmail and the State of the Union

In this week's RNCmail, your friend and mine, Ken Mehlman, exhorts the mindless Republican masses to party like it's 1482 on the night of the State of the Union to celebrate the triumph of Our Glorious Leader and Big Brother over the forces of tyrrany.

I, for one, see little about which to party. Our economy stinks; no one wants our treasury bills (which will have the long-term effect of raising interest rates and further collapsing our economy ... yay!); Iraq is a morass of mixed news, violence and uncertainty; the Democratic party is full of simpering "maybe" men (and women) rather than the righteous swords of justice it should be; the Bush administration asserts the justifiability and efficacy of torture (even though America was at the forefront of pushing for its banishment from the world just two or three generations ago); and they're tapping our phone calls and reading our mail (no, not just the terrorists -- dissident groups and peaceniks, too).

Details are at gop.com, if you feel like hosting a guerrilla house party. Not that I would encourage such a thing.

A headline from today's Google News

Noted (almost) without comment:

Bush says US eavesdropping program "good for democracy" (Khaleej Times)

The irony clearly escapes him. Too stupid? Too clueless?